Quote:
Originally Posted by RWood
IMHO:
There is fun and there is fun, I view this polluting of the English language version of Wikipedia as approaching on abuse. If you still wish to fight for the adoption of this word in English then start your own website, get other web sites to start using the word, convince the NY Times and Washington Post that this is the right word. Do not play foot games with the editors of Wikipedia by adding stuff to Wikipedia that they delete. When there is only one source, one reference for the use of the word, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Other places like dictionary.com are more suitable for this kind of entry. You are looking to define a term and a word definition does not belong in an encyclopedia. |
The only reason anyone would convince the NY Times or Washington Post to adopt the word is if they wanted said word included in 'American' English. As we're talking about the Queen's English (stand up all you Britishers and sing the National Anthem) then we'd do better to look away from North America towards England and possibly the Times or Le Monde (Vive La France).
From a Briton
*God save our Gracious Queen. Huzzah! Cricket, fair play, what a corker. More tea, Vicar? Chips and fish. My old man's a dustman. Oo-er missus. Up the apples and pears.*
